Talk:Glenn Beck

This article is a mess.

Is it just me, or is this article a complete mess? It doesn't flow, isn't in the proper format, and doesn't even have a picture of Glenn at the title. The criticism section, which is longer than all the other sections combined, is copied word for word from liberal attack blogs. There is very little biographical information, and the information that is there seems to be rather biased against him. Sections seem to be pasted in at random, such as RamaHanuKwanzMas. In my opinion this article needs cleanup. It is clearly not following wikipedia's NPOV policy. But, what do I expect, this is wikipedia, and it is well known which way the editors are biased. Fsjonsey 22:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking of messes and Wikipedia policies, please note the follow is right at the top of this page:

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Put new text under old text.

Since you might be new to Wikipedia, perhaps you did not know this. Please put future comments at the bottom of this page, not the top, and sign them.

If you have more biographical information, please put it in. For me to add it, that would require Beck to give more details and a valid source to publish it.

Attempts to clean up this article are often met with complaints about POV and therefore, many editors have given up on this.

As for a photo, if you have one that matches the legal requirements of Wikipedia, we would be very happy to put it in the article, however, I have neither a camera, nor access to Beck, so I can't take one and put it here.

Rather than complain that it is "well known which way the editors are biased", which by the way is not well known to me, since I've seen bias in all directions here, perhaps you can help us by posting some non biased information here.

Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope to see you around here often. Thank you. Fanra 21:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for forgetting how to sign my posts. Its been a year since I've really done anything here, and am a little rusty. I'm not real familiar with wikipedia's copyrighted photo policy, but i thought that low resolution publicity photos could be used here. Fsjonsey 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, its really great being met with hostility when i bring some concerns to the talk page of an article on a controversial figure. It seems that you are the sole person doing most of the edits here and controlling the tone of the article, deleting and, or changing the edits made by other users. It can be gathered that you are not a fan of Beck, and are using wikipedia's guidelines to cover your biased edits. Fsjonsey 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hostility? I just reread what I posted and I fail to see any hostility. I requested that you follow Wikipedia policies and specially put in that you might be new here so I explained them rather than just lash out at you for not following them. I used please and thank you and said "I hope to see you around here often". I'm sorry but that is the exact opposite of hostility.

Wikipedia's copyright policy is that any photos of living persons (where you can still go get a photo of them, rather than dead people, who you can't) is that we want non copyrighted photos. See: Wikipedia:Image use policy. Note that while images can be used under "fair use", that is highly discouraged here.

I am not the sole person doing edits here, in fact, I have not done edits much here at all since I was accused of POV and I decided it wasn't worth it. I am not a fan of Beck's but I decided that I'm not going to get people to realize what an idiot he is by changing his Wikipedia article. I.E., "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think". As a result, I restrict myself to just trying to keep this article to the facts and I don't bother to remove information that really doesn't belong here because I just get accused of removing pro-Beck stuff.

Feel free to put in how great he is here. I really don't care. People see what they want to see. I mean there is a fight over at the Joseph Stalin page where people are trying to defend a man who is the greatest mass murderer in history. Compared to that, I really don't expect to change anyone's mind about Beck. Again, feel free to make him out to be the second coming of Jesus, just be sure to follow Wikipedia's rules and that is fine. Fanra 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, and if you really want his photo here, the best way to do so is to write him an email requesting that he license one under a license we can use. Go here: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. People in his profession want their name and image to be spread about so he is pretty likely to be very happy to send you a photo with the proper permission. Fanra 23:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fanra, you basically just admitted that you are very biased against Beck, and that you did attempt to edit this article to make him out to be an "Idiot." I think the statement "I'm not going to get people to realize what an idiot he is by changing his Wikipedia article" sums it up your feelings toward him pretty well. I agree that this should not become the Glenn Beck fanpage, however, it should be held to the quality standards as articles on other Radio Personalities. This is supposedly an encyclopedia, and should not be used to try to influence the reader's opinion one way or another. Fsjonsey 00:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I admit that I dislike the positions he takes on issues. I did not say that I attempted to edit this article to make him out to be an idiot, please read more carefully, what I said was that I know that if I did so that it would make no difference to his supporters' views that he is God.

I agree that this is an encyclopedia and should not be used to try to influence people, other than hopefully by presenting facts in a neutral way that people can learn something. It is the purpose of Wikipedia to do this, i.e., "Know ye the truth, and the truth shall set you free", is pretty much Wikipedia's goal. No one in the entire world is unbiased and everyone has a point of view, so the idea that someone who admits that they have one is unfit to edit Wikipedia would just mean that would only allow liars (maybe just to themselves, but nonetheless) to edit here. Everyone is encouraged to help work on Wikipedia regardless of their personal viewpoints, they just have to make sure that their edits observe NPOV. Fanra 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated Bio

I updated and corrected some information in his bio. It was his brother-in-law that committed suicide not brother as Glenn has no brothers, he has two sisters. Also I added that another brother-in-law had a fatal heart attack about the same time. Place of birth, Mt Vernon Washington, was also added. All of this info can be found at Glennpedia and he has stated it on his radio and tv show. -- 03/07/07 jsager75

Tired Of Free Speech?

glenn beck said on headline news that hes "sick of all this free speech bull crap" what a stupid motherfucker.

This is not the place to make ad hominem attacks on the subject of the article. Please leave speech like this to forums of political discussion. -- 6/27/07 Fsjonsey

External Links

I added my popular blog to the list of sites opposed to Beck. Please do not remove it, it has been linked many time on large blogs. Achorn 20:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed a broken link to an Atlanta Journal Constitution page describing his TV deal with CNN.

Criticism and NPOV

A criticism section does not violate NPOV and should be included in this article. The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Negative content section states Views that are relevant to the subject's notability, are based on reliable sources, and are not given undue weight are usually appropriate content. If a view represents that of a tiny uninfluential minority, it has no place in the article.

Other examples of Biographies of living persons with appropriate criticism sections are:

• Tony Blair#Criticism and Criticism of Tony Blair — Wikipedia Featured Article
• George W. Bush#Criticism and public perception
• Rush Limbaugh#Subject of criticism
• Pope Benedict XVI — An excerpt from this article is "This has drawn sharp criticism from Catholic gay rights advocates like journalist Andrew Sullivan, who claim that Benedict is espousing a form of fundamentalist edict, and is opposed to external questioning of his doctrines"

Glenn has many critics. It is part of his notability. To remove or hide what Glenn's influential opposition says about him would make this article biased. I argue that in order for this article to be NPOV it needs the criticism section. Please refer to my comments on the subject in the previous section. Sweeping changes to an article should be discussed here before they are made. And please use your wikipedia account before making sweeping changes to an article. --Jared W 17:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a problem with explaining that his criticism has thus far been primarily "liberal" groups? The article states that Beck's a conservative; the organizations that have criticized him are "progressive" or liberal. It's extremely relevant to indicate what kinds of organizations are criticizing him. I don't want to enter a revert war, so I'm posting here. Zz414 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is probably appropriate to describe the standpoint of his critics when discussing them. However, in the case of FAIR, the more accurate term would be "left-leaning" instead of "liberal." Twalls 20:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, FAIR has been called "left-leaning." The Wiki page for FAIR notes that it identifies itself as a "progressive" group and that it has been described as "liberal" by the Columbia Journalism Review and Media Matters. "Left-leaning" is the agreed-upon resolution here. Please stop making anonymous changes when a resolution has been reached here. --Zz414 14:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Highly Biased

This article is highly biased with most criticisms of Glenn Beck being deleted. My links to the audio of Glen Beck threatening Michael Moore keeps disappearing. He mentions how he would look him in the eye and choke him.

(sigh) The article is not "highly biased". It is in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Please read and understand wikipedia guidelines. --Jared W 06:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is about Beck, not about everything he's criticized about. There are a few of the more prominent criticisms, but to avoid things like undue weight, the amount of criticism is proportional to the length of the article. Zz414 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To speak more directly to your point, I think that the statement in the Criticism section makes it very clear that he has spoken unprofessionally about a number of people, and readers can see the details in the reference links if they are interested. -- KellyLogan 19:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This article does NOT need more information on "Criticism". This is an article about Glenn Beck. Why do we need to hear everybody's opinions of him? That is no better than an article praising his stance on things. It should be neutral all the way around. State his beliefs and views on the issues and let people judge for themselves. We don't need Critics to sway our judgement,... do we??? Personally, I can make my own mind up whether I agree or disagree with someone on any particular issue without any particular groups consensus or criticisms. 5by5 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

Glenn Beck earned his way to national fame in July 2003 at his Tampa, FL. radio station, he recieved a "local" news story on a comatose woman awaken after years of being in a coma by the name of Terry Schiavo was going to lose life support. The article may add the fact that Beck is the first major radio host to bring forth the Terry Schiavo life-support controversy to national consciousness and the politically heated event would be lost if it wasn't for Glenn Beck got the story around the world.

Another thing to add is on the January 18, 2007 segment of the Glenn Beck (radio) program (09:15AM EST)- courtesy of his official web site, when he's the subject of verbal attacks by congressman Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that Beck is a "right-wing fascist". Keep the article updated on whether Glenn Beck may sue Rep. Kennedy Jr. for libel or slander, or he brushes off those comments that are unfounded, since Beck has no formal ties with neo-fascist parties or organizations to begin with. Mike D 26 05:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Hello!!!!!! I am new to this article, and actually just started to read it for the first time today! Any way under the George W. Bush section it says the following

"Beck sometimes questions the Bush administration, however, on issues including border security, government spending, some aspects of the Iraq War, and the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court."

This is an incomplete thought.... whoever has knowledge on this part should correct it. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 05:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a complete sentence (and thought) to me. Though, I would have put the "however" at the beginning of the sentence, however, so that the sentence would be easier to read.  ;-) Just drop the "however" (and the commas before and after) and read it again. It makes more sense that way. I've reworded the article to do this. If it still doesn't make sense, bring it up on this page; I may be wrong. Val42 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The guy's racist

Whoever wrote "The guy's racist" in this discussion page is apparently not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and practices. POV has no place in the article. Glen Beck has always stated his views about particular groups openly and as far as I have seen, heard, and read he doesn't catorgorize any whole group as good or bad, but just the opposite... that every group, or race if you prefer, has good and bad qualities. He does however frequently state his negative opinion on "Extremists" which raises quite a bit of controversy since certain members of the Muslim Religion find his point of views offensive. 5by5 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove Dansig(sp) section

Can we find better sources than attack blogs? Thanks --Tom 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources here. There are tons of other forums out there for this kind of stuff. Please stick to reliable sources. I am no fan of this guy, but this article needs to maintain a certain level of review. You don't like this guy which is fine, just keeps the blogs out otherwise this article won't be worth much. Cheers! --Tom 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Blogs are not factual, but just POV. It seems that there are many people who just want to throw in their criticisms on this article instead of the Facts. 5by5 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Blogs and attack sites

Please stop adding blogs or hate sites. If this guy is a baby killer, great, get a reliable source and add that material. If he wanted nude pictures of some broad, even better! Get some RELIABLE sources that cover it and include it. If in ANY doubt, do NOT include it. I am an equal opportunity remover of unsourced/questionable material for EITHER side. There is a new sherrif in town :) just kidding. Seriously, I know this guy is a lighning rod to folks but lets rise above this. Any other thoughts? Thanks!--Tom 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i see how it is. My site has been linked on countless sites, I've been on air america radio, and i have a large following and am a respected member of the blog community, but my blog isnt good enough for wikipedia? What do you consider "reliable"??? mediamatters? thinkprogress? crooksandliars? cause i can post them all here if thats what you want. Achorn 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Achorn, congratulations on your success, but I would refer you to WP:RS. Sorry for being a stick in the mud but i am just one tiny editor trying to keep Wikipedia up to encyclopediatic levels. --Tom 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are at the cutting edge of political discourse. Blogs are the next evolution of the internet. I'm sorry that wikipedia apparently only allows sources that are in magazines or newspapers, or the "big media" companies, but I guess wikipedia wants to be behind the times. Achorn 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you are getting it. --Tom 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So lemme get this straight Tom, you have deleted all sites opposed to Beck. So now people coming to wikipedia will think no one opposes him. Great message to send. I guess we know where you stand now. Achorn 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Many articles have critizism(sp) sections or the like. This article has one, doesn't it? This article and most articles would be crap if the external links section was open ended. Please see WP:EL. Also, find some pro Beck stuff that isn't sourced and I'll remove it and then his fans can scream at me. I really don't care about guy as much as you do, thats pretty clear. Anyways,--Tom 19:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is over. But I am editing Beck's site now to remove unneccessary and redundant information. Achorn 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Especially, unsourced, questionable material should be removed. Also, WP:OR is a huge problem in these parts. People/editors love to use reliable sources and then form their own analysis to add material. Another big no-no. As you have seen, I am a huge believe in less is better than more. Anyways--Tom 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

March 20, 2007 factual errors introduced by anonymous IP edits

The first error that caught my attention is the change of the radio station WFLA-AM in Tampa, Florida to Washington. The second glaring error is his religion. According to his bio at Glenn Beck, he was "he was baptized Mormon" at the age of 30. Looking at all six edits, this anon IP stumbled around making spelling mistakes until it finally settled on its final version.

Based upon these errors, I will revert to the last correct version before these edits. Ronbo76 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dina Sansing interview

It was a joke gone bad. Why would he mean anything else? He's on tv. -Yancyfry

Have you actually read the transcript of the entire interview? The “proposition” at the end was nothing of the sort; it was an attempt to point out the hypocrisy of Sansing’s position. In the interview, she repeatedly suggests that having revealing photos taken isn’t something that would ruin someone’s career. To point out what a ludicrous suggestion that is, Beck jokingly suggests taking pictures of her. Since she does not quickly accept his suggestion, it demonstrates that she might have some doubts about the fallout from such an invitation. Perhaps the point was lost on most people, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was a joking point, not an actual proposition. 75.30.231.157 08:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this section is completely biased and lacks understanding the true context of the conversation between the two. It was in joking fashion and both Glenn and Dina took it in joking fashion. Certain members of the media do not like Glenn because of his conservative position. This ought to be taken into consideration when adding a section about Glenn.

That may be true I dont know him personally. I also dont believe that people should make judgement on a person's character based upon political views. It is unfortunate that people think someone is a jerk just because they are liberal or conservative. He may very well be a jerk but that doesnt mean he actually sexually harrassed anyone. Context, context, context. We must place the whole conversation context not just a portion of the conversation. That my friend is biased.

Archived Stuff

I created two archive pages, one all subjects talked about prior to 2006 and one with 2006 subjects. This will make it easier to read and use this discussion page. If you have a subject that you feel needs to be here with current discussion, just start a new subject here with what you want to say. Thank you. Fanra 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RamaHanuKwanzMas

Can anyone verify that Glenn actually coined this term? It would help if we had a source describing where and when. I can recall about a decade ago when I first started hearing this term on the radio, but not from GB. On an unrelated note, RamaHanuKwanzMas should have its own page. 134.84.100.80 02:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a page by that name, but it was deleted because it wasn't "notable". It would need proper citations if it were to survive for long. Val42 02:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont know whether he coined the term but did sell t-shirts that had RamaHanuKwanzMas on his website.

Al Sharpton

Someone put in "Beck began his broadcast with the following:" and then puts in a quote that is cobbled together from some remarks he made DURING the broadcast. He didn't begin the broadcast with them, as can be seen here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/10/gb.01.html So I'm removing it. Fanra 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Al Sharpton interview

I spent a lot of time fixing up this section to make it clear and factual. But after reading it, I wonder why it is in the Criticism section. Has anyone criticized this interview? This is a very interesting interview and I liked reading about it but if it belongs here at all, I don't think it belongs under Criticism. Fanra 12:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I moved it up as a sub-header to the show. -- MisterHand 15:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Lawfamily

Lawfamily recently reverted a bunch of things I added to the article. He claimed in his edit summary that I was violating NPOV. Some of what I posted might be considered POV information, at least I could see that it was open to discussion. However, he reverted everything I added, some of it was absolutely neutral no matter what your viewpoint. He didn't post here that he had a problem with anything I posted, he just reverted. I'm not posting this to complain about him. I'm posting this to explain why I'm going to restore most of what I posted and I wish to avoid an edit war. I've left a message for him on his talk page. Fanra 20:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Exposed: The Climate of Fear

I have added a main tag to link to the main article: Exposed: The Climate of Fear which needs to be improved.--Zeeboid 19:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Exposed location

I can't help but think that the section on Exposed: the Climate of Fear should be under the T.V. show, not the beliefs. 207.233.124.3 03:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's a mess. But I'm not going to fix it because I've been accused of bias and my edits will just be reverted by the accuser and I don't think edit wars are worth my time. Fanra 10:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I get to thinking about how this should look. I looks like he'll be doing a series of Exposed specials like this one and The Extreamist Agenda. Why not give them all a section under the T.V. show? A subsection under the T.V. show, and a sub-subsection for each Exposed special; I think each special can probably be summed up in two or three lines, but what do I know; I'm a bloody IP address! For now, I can move the section on The Climate of Fear into the T.V. section and start an Exposed section. Mr. Fanra, you can tag it for cleanup when I'm done, since I don't know how. Others can add to or (preferably) subtract from the work at will, since I suck at layout. If someone with an account doesn't like it, please let me know why not; I seek to better myself. 71.136.224.242 07:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) All done. A few notes: That first paragraph under Exposed: The Climate of Fear is probably enough information. I'd delete the second paragraph, but deleting information is a bit more cowboy than this IP address is comfortable with. Also, it needs some information on Exposed: The Extreamist Agenda. Again, not in-depth; just so the reader can get an idea of what the special was about. If this stays, thanks for the confidence boost. 71.136.224.242 07:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Protocol

Well, my carefully researched statement, which took information right from Beck's own website and the link he himself put on his website to "prove" he was right, was totally gutted. I've put a POV and Fact dispute tag on that section. I hope someone can mediate this to avoid an edit war. Fanra 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• It has been a while and no one has responded to my statement. Therefore, I assume no one will have a problem if I remove any opinion on the issue other than his and put a See Also in the section. That way we remain neutral here (I'm not putting back my original text because I don't want anyone claiming I'm putting in a POV) and anyone who cares whether or not Beck is right or wrong about the treaty can go look at it themselves. Fanra 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"tough interrogation methods"

Ok, someone put in, "He does not approve of torture, but does approve of tough interrogation methods as a means of exploiting terrorist information in certain circumstances.". Exactly what is "tough interrogation methods" and how are they different than torture?

Also I've found a transcript of his opinion on torture. However, if I put in in this article, I'm sure to get some response from people here. So, I'm going to put it here first and see what people say.

On Beck's October 6, 2005 radio show, he interviewed a caller who claimed to have been an American intelligence officer. After the man described the methods used to extract information, Beck said the following, "Mitch, I've got to tell you I appreciate your service. I don't know your circumstances at all. I, you know, I have to assume that, because we wear the white hats that we're not doing this at the drop of a hat." and "If you're comfortable telling this kind of -- it's not something that when you first meet -- say, "Hey, by the way, for 30 years I tortured people." I mean, it's kind of an awkward, weird, kind of thing. But I have to tell you, when all is said and done, I'm glad people like you are on our side."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510070011

Before we all start jumping all over this, I really ask, a.) Did Beck really say this? It appears he did. b.) Does this represent his opinion on the issue? It appears it does. c.)Is putting this in the article biased? Well, it is what he really said. If someone feels that he does not feel this way could they please find a quote of Beck saying differently? And if he does say that he feels differently then should we put both quotes in and leave it to the reader to decide which one is his true opinion? Fanra 03:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See Also

The See Also section needs to be changed completely. It looks like someone has vandalized it and replaced whatever was there with fictitious holidays instead of valid links.